Collective impact is at a strategic inflection
point. After almost three years of extraordinary
hype, investors are wondering what this
concept really means when they receive proposals
that simply replace the term “collaboration”
with “collective impact.”1 Researchers
are perplexed by so-called new ways of doing
business that look eerily similar to what they
have already studied. And most important,
leaders and practitioners in communities are
confused about what it really means to put
collective impact into action.

As the founding managing director (Jeff
Edmondson) and a national funder (Ben
Hecht) of StriveTogether, we remain bullish
on the concept of collective impact. For us, it
is the only path forward to address complex
social problems—there is no Plan B. Yet to realize
its promise, we need to define in concrete
terms what “quality collective impact” really
means. For that reason, we have spent the last
18 months aggressively working on a coherent
definition to increase the rigor of these efforts,
so that this concept does not become watered
down. We feel confident that if we agree on
core characteristics, we can stop the unfortunate
trend of “spray and pray”—haphazardly
launching programs and initiatives and hoping
that good things will happen. Instead, we can
crystallize the meaning of collective impact
and solve seemingly intractable problems.

First, some background on the organization.
StriveTogether is an outgrowth of The
StrivePartnership in Cincinnati, Ohio, which
is based at KnowledgeWorks and was featured
in the first article on collective impact,
published in the Winter 2011 issue of Stanford
Social Innovation Review. StriveTogether
has pulled together more than 45 of the most
committed communities around the country
to form the StriveTogether Cradle to Career
Network. Its aim is not to start new
programs—we have plenty. Instead, the network
is focused on articulating how cross-sector
partners can best work together to identify
and build on what already works—and innovate
as necessary—to support the unique
needs of every child.

Fortunately, the members of the network
have been willing to “fail forward” by
sharing not only their successes, but also
their struggles, using the lessons they have
learned to advance the field. Their experiences
during the last three years have contributed
to the creation of a vital tool called
the StriveTogether Theory of Action (TOA),
which provides a guide for communities to
build a new civic infrastructure.2 The TOA
highlights a community’s natural evolution
and provides the quality benchmarks that,
taken together, differentiate this work from
traditional collaboration. It uses what we
call “gateways,” or developmental stages,
to chart the path from early on (“exploring”),
through intermediate and later stages
(“emerging” and “sustaining”), and finally to
“systems change,” where communities see
improvement in educational outcomes. We
define systems change as a community-wide
transformation in which various partners
a) proactively use data to improve their
decision-making and b) constantly weigh the
impact of their decisions on both their own
institutions and the broader ecosystem that
works to improve the lives of children. The
ultimate result—which we are witnessing
beyond Cincinnati in partnerships like The
Roadmap Project in Seattle—are examples
of communities where we see sustained
improvement in a limited set of measurable
outcomes that are critical for kids to succeed
and for communities to thrive.

The TOA is not perfect: for example, we
realize this work is not linear. Nonetheless, the
framework captures the fundamental building
blocks necessary for collective impact. As more
communities adopt it, it will help us identify
the most important aspects of our work.

Four Principles

Four principles underlie our work across
the Theory of Action and lead to long-term
sustainability.

Build a culture of continuous improvement
| Data can be intimidating in any field,
but this is especially true in education, where
numbers are most often used as a hammer
instead of a flashlight.3 To counter this pitfall,
community leaders from Albany, N.Y., to
Anchorage, Alaska, are creating a culture that
embraces data to generate ongoing improvement.4
At the heart of this process lie the
“Three I’s”: identify, interpret, and improve.
Community leaders work with experts to
identify programmatic or service data to collect
at the right time from a variety of partners,
not simply with individual organizations.
They then interpret the data and generate
user-friendly reports. Last, they improve their
efforts on the ground by training practitioners
to adapt their work using the new information.
Dallas’s Commit! partnership provides a good
example. There, leaders identified schools that
had achieved notable improvement in third
grade literacy despite long odds. The backbone
staff worked with practitioners to identify the
most promising schools and interpret data
to identify the practices that led to improvements.
District leaders are now working to
spread those practices across the region, using
data as a tool for continuous improvement.

Eliminate disparities | Communities
nationwide recognize that aggregated data can
mask real disparities. Disaggregating data to
understand what services best meet the needs
of all students enables communities to make
informed decisions. For the All Hands Raised
partnership in Portland, Ore., closing the opportunity
gap is priority number one. It disaggregates
data to make disparities visible to all and
partners with leaders of color to lead the critical
conversations that are necessary to address
historic inequities. The partnership engaged
district leaders to change policies and spread
effective practices. Over the last three years, the
graduation gap for students of color has closed
from 14.3 percent to 9.5 percent. In several large
high schools the gap is gone.

Leverage existing assets | The
all-too-common affliction “project-itis” exerts a
strong pull on the social sector, creating a
powerful temptation to import a new program
instead of understanding and improving the
current system. At every level of collective impact
work, practitioners have to devote time,
talent, and treasure toward the most effective
strategies. Making use of existing assets, but
applying a new focus to them, is essential to
demonstrating that collective impact work truly
represents a new way of doing business, not
just an excuse to add new overhead or create
new programs. In Milwaukee, Wis., and Toledo,
Ohio, for example, private businesses lend staff
members with relevant expertise to help with
data analytics so that communities can identify
existing practices having an impact.

Engage local expertise and community
voice | Effective data analysis provides a powerful
tool for decision-making, but it represents
only one vantage point. Local expertise
and community voice add a layer of context
that allows practitioners to better understand
the data. Success comes when we engage partners
who represent a broad cross-section of
the community not only to shape the overall
vision, but also to help practitioners use data
to change the ways they serve children. In
San Diego, the City Heights Partnership for
Children actively engages parents in supporting
their peers. Parents have helped design an
early literacy toolkit based on local research
and used it to help other families prepare
children for kindergarten. As more families
become involved, they are actively advocating
early literacy as a priority for local schools.

The Promise of Quality Collective Impact

For a more complete version of this table visit www.strivetogether.org.

Collective impact efforts can represent a significant
leap in the journey to address pervasive
social challenges. But to ensure that this concept
leads to real improvements in the lives of those
we serve, we must bring rigor to the practice by
drawing on lessons from a diverse array of communities
and defining in concrete terms what
makes this work different. The StriveTogether
Theory of Action represents a step in that direction,
building on the momentum this concept
has generated during the past three years.

As US Deputy Secretary of Education Jim
Shelton has simply put it: “To sustain this
movement around collective impact, we need
‘proof points.’” These come from raising the
bar on what we mean by “quality” collective
impact and challenging ourselves to meet
higher standards. In so doing, not only will we
prove the power of this concept, but we can
change the lives of children and families in
ways we could never have imagined.